Experts skeptical of N.H. ballot-count conspiracy theory

[Algorem]

Source: Associated Press

By Beverley Wang
Associated Press Writer / January 11, 2008

CONCORD, N.H.—CONCORD, N.H.—...

An analysis by The Associated Press' Election Research and Quality Control service found that Clinton led Obama by about 6 percentage points in machine-counted towns, where she earned 53 percent of the vote and Obama earned 47 percent. Obama led Clinton by about 8 percentage points in hand-counted towns, where he earned 54 percent of the vote and Clinton earned 46 percent.

Joe Lenski, executive vice president of Edison Media Research, one of two firms that conduct election exit polling for The AP and television networks, said those numbers fit the pattern...


"If you do a little more statistical digging, you find out that this isn't proving what they think it's proving. It's a pattern that's been around for years," he said.

In 2008, 2004 and 2000, towns and cities using ballot-counting machines skewed toward Democratic primary winners Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore, while those where ballots are hand-counted went to second-place finishers Obama, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley...





Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/11/experts_skeptical_of_nh_ballot_count_conspiracy_theory/

---

Dennis Kucinich: http://www.dennis4president.com/

New Hampshire Secretary of State: http://www.sos.nh.gov/

[SpiralHawk]

1. "Voters skeptical of experts." - Americans

You can bet your bippy we're skeptical.

[MilesColtrane]

51. Sound like another chicken joke to me!

[autorank]

53. Here's why we should doubt these experts.

Here's what the "experts" from this article told us with their exit polls in 2004. See how expert they seem to you. From Election 2004: The Urban Legend Collins/Anaxarchos - The unbelievable story of the 2004 Presidential election according to the exit polls OR Bush Wins it in the Big Cities!

Then the urban wave began to form. According to the final exit poll, despite being abandoned by his 2000 base, which was specifically targeted for even more votes in 2004, Bush rallied in the smaller cities. He went from a loss of 60%-40% in 2000 to a dubious break even in 2004. Instead of an inadequate 3.8 million advantage in 2000, Bush went downtown, so to speak, with a seemingly staggering 6.8 million vote advantage over Kerry.

Remarkably, that was not going to be enough for a Bush win. Had Kerry maintained the Gore big city margin of 2000 with the 60% increase in turnout, he would have won the election easily, both numerically and in terms of electoral votes. And why wouldn’t he maintain that margin? Bush was indifferent to the big cities and there was little campaign activity there; the turnout increase in the NEP was huge, from 9.2 million to 15.2 million. These people must have been motivated. Kerry was on deck with a big bat against a weak opposing team.


Figure 5. Unprecedented! That’s the only word necessary to show the dichotomy of 2004 –
Bush losing actual votes in his base, rural America, while gaining an exponential increase in big cities.

But something happened. The Urban Legendappeared in the form of a tidal wave of increased Bush support. While his rural, conservative, white, Christian voters were staying home or changing candidates, it seemed that his appeal to urban voters went off the charts. He increased from 26% to 39% of the big city vote total, from a 2.7 million total in 2000 to 5.9 million total votes in 2004. What was happening? The urban legend was born.

Election 2004: The Urban Legend Collins/Anaxarchos

[Kelvin Mace]

60. You can't have it both ways

When we confirm what you say, we're cool. When we tell you everything's cool, we get attacked.

This is one of the reasons I have almost gotten completely out of the issue.

[niceypoo]

81. The sky is falling!

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. When the recount yields nothing, they'll say the recount was flawed.

There's no end to shit like this.

[JMDEM]

3. Then you are opposed to all recounts. How democratic. NT.

[Bonobo]

4. What shit would that be? Oh you mean verifying vote counts, yeah. That is shit all right.

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Then let's have automatic recounts for every election then.

As a matter of course. Every single one has been rigged according to somebody.

[Bonobo]

7. I could not agree more.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. We'll set up a special account for them, we'll need $1000 from

you to cover the costs.

[Bonobo]

10. You don't think our taxes should cover fair elections?

[The_Casual_Observer]

11. Your opinion on this borders on the paranoid & conspiratorial.

No amount of recounts & safeguards would really satisfy you when your candidate lost, admit it.

[Bonobo]

12. I admit that you cannot focus on what is important. Oh or answer direct questions.

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. Tempest, meet teapot.

You didn't notice that I never once said that you shouldn't have your little recount did I? I pointed out the unfortunate fact that it probably wouldn't end there. That's why I won't argue with you, your response to me had no merit.

[elias7]

62. my candidate won, yet I want this recount

[bleever]

72. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[zanne]

85. In NH, it's only $2,000 for a recount...

Dennis Kucinich will pay that for the Democratic recount and Republican Albert Howard will pay that for the Republican recount. The money will come from contributions and their own pockets. Not a big deal. AND the recount will be HAND COUNTED!

[99th_Monkey]

20. How about HAND-counted balloting in EVERY election? That I could support

after all, the USA has somehow managed to do this without hackable machines for how long now? .. before 2002 all the way back .. right?

BTW, the custom as i understand it is that the hand counting is also observed by reps. from both/all major parties and/or candidates, so
there is reasonable chance any buggering would be of marginal significance, as opposed to the e-voting which has been proven to be
hackable and easily can swing huge numbers of votes in secret.

[hack89]

43. Since people can never be corrupted

why not? Do you really think election fraud is a modern phenomena? That hand counts can't be corrupted?

[JackRiddler]

46. Obviously not...

But you'll agree the Tammany way is a bit harder to pull off, or to hide, than sneaking some code into "proprietary" software that is later deleted as a matter of course.

[SoxFan]

67. The op scan has actually reduced fraud

At least in NH.

The paper ballots are a nightmare. A stray mark from a piece of pencil lead under the fingernail can invalidate an offending ballot. A ballot clerk can "accidentally" transpose numbers on the tally sheet.

With the scanner ballots, you have the best of both worlds. The machine count gives you a quick and accurate result, provides a raw count as a baseline number of ballots cast. The ballots themselves are designed so as to provide a hand-countable, verifiable paper trail.

I've worked many recounts in elections usuing both ballots. I've seen more weird stuff in paper ballot races than in scanner races.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. There are two things that can actually be done right now.

1) independent verification through exit polls - exit polls done without polluting the data with the official vote count - and done for the purpose of verifying that vote count, to make sure that the exit polls - the unadjusted and independent exit polls match the official vote count within the MOE.

2) statistically valid random sample audits of the vote in order to hand count a small number to ballots to determine that the random sample matches, within the MOE, the official vote count.

There is no reason NOT to do these things.

[balantz]

35. What organizations do the exit polls currently?

Did I understand correctly that CNN has been involved?

[jbnow]

56. Edison/Mitofsky conducts exit poll for all

the pool members-ABC, the Associated Press, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC

So though they say "our exit polls show.." on all the stations it is one firm who then provides it.

[Igel]

40. At the end you still need some data after the polls close.

Little things like turnout in each precinct, at a minimum.

[JackRiddler]

45. Absolutely.

No results should be finalized without a full corroborating hand-count of paper ballots.

[ccpup]

6. exactly

if Obama wins, then it's fair and square. If Hillary wins, well, then there must have been shenanigans or something.

It. Just. Never. Ends.

DU: The Home of Selective Outrage

[99th_Monkey]

23. yes. nevermind all those weird last-minute "anomalies".. move along now. no story here.

I personally could care less, who wins or loses. I care about an election system that is reliable and transparent, and can be verified after the fact as needed.

I'm a Kucinich and/or Edwards supporter, but if Obama won, he deserves his win. end of story.

[SoxFan]

65. Neither "weird" nor "last minute"

The alleged anomalies are due to differences in the demographics and political sociology between communities. That's all. Obama won the same towns that boosted Dean, bradley, Fernald, Rauh, etc. They are towns that vote for maverick progressive reformers. The vote in larger cities is more prone to influence by the Shaheen political hacks.

[Tiggeroshii]

24. If the recount yields nothing, I will be 95% more confident

in the results of that election. Right now I have about 5% confidence . I highly doubt Clinton lost that election but believe that the disparities between the polls and actual results justifies a recount. If I had it my way, there would be a 100% audit after every election that takes place to confirm nothing hokey happened in regards to any of the voting equipment used. Unfortunately I don't have it my way and it's in the hands of a candidate who's willing to ask and pay for a recount.

[Peace Patriot]

49. Yes, there is! COUNT. EVERY. VOTE. IN. PUBLIC. VIEW! nt

[Kelvin Mace]

61. Yep!

I have a twenty dollar bet with a colleague on that. There is a faction in the e-voting reform that cannot let a good conspiracy go. And of course, for saying what you just said, you just joined the conspiracy.

Welcome aboard. Supposedly we get suitcases full of cash from Diebold, but I have yet to see one.

[AntiFascist]

82. If the recount yields nothing then they'll have to concede...

but they can still complain about the security of the ballots after the election (loss of chain of custody, or something to that effect). I'm sure this type of corruption is extremely thorough. Look at the extent to which Bush stole the 2004 election in Ohio.

[rodeodance]

9. Oh great....the AP is calling it a conspiracy theory.

[BadgerLaw2010]

14. It is speculating about a vote stealing conspiracy. What else should they call it?

[JackRiddler]

47. False vote count - it might be due to a defect, for example.

[jbnow]

57. Also a conspiracy has to involve

at least two people

Perhaps I have access and I see this
is going on.

Online traders who placed a $100 (£51) bet on Mrs Clinton were rewarded with pay-offs of as much as $10,000 after her upset victory over Barack Obama, trading on Intrade, a Dublin-based online prediction market, showed.

Her chances of winning in New Hampshire plummeted to a record low of 1 per cent after her defeat in last week's Iowa caucuses. It prompted online traders to shift almost all their bets to Mr Obama, Intrade data showed.

Obama's chances surged to as high as 99 per cent on Tuesday after polls indicated that he was also ahead in New Hampshire.

Obama's chances 99? I'd get a 100 to 1 pay off betting on Clinton to win? When will I get a chance like this again? I'm not paid much but I have a few thousand I could bet. No one would find out, God knows it's easy. What would it hurt? It's just an early primary.

See-no conspiracy

[Malva Zebrina]

15. Experts? Unfortuneately Bush regime and the media

have put the role of "experts" into the same role as "astronomers" NOthing is believeable.

I find it hard to believe anything coming from anyone at all, including some really popular bloggers, in this day and age.

[Demeter]

22. I Think You Mean Astrologers

Astronomers are way out there, physically, but they are accepted as scientists by all except the Flat Earth Creationists.

[Joanne98]

16. We want to count them ANYWAY!

[frog92969]

17. We should be raising hell EVERY TIME these machines are used

until they get rid of the damn things.
Count EVERY VOTE by hand, I'll wait.
Anyone caught cheating should be executed for treason, anyone fucking with OUR democracy is no less than a traitor.

Workable solution-
Give each counter 1000 ballots, lock them in a cell with cameras, send 2 more in afterwards 1 at a time to check the count, all searched twice each going in and coming out with witnesses.

If you can't trust anybody DON'T trust anybody.
Why do we put up with this crap?

[scipan]

70. These are optical scan machines.

Full paper ballot backup. They just need to be counted.

[frog92969]

75. But why waste time

when we KNOW these machines are screwed instead of just counting them right the first time.
Most of the time there might not be enough suspicion to know a recount's needed.

I'm not saying I know NH was wrong but I do know the machines are screwed, wether flawed or "owned" doesn't matter.
In Maryland I'm stuck with the TOUCH SCREENS so I'm especially pissed over this.

[balantz]

18. Demand a recount for every state until it is all done by paper only

and recounted anyway! Sadly, South Carolina can't have a recount because there will be no paper used in the first place!

[Xipe Totec]

21. Every vote that is cast in New Hampshire is cast on a paper ballot

"That's part of where the confusion may be nationally. What people have to understand first of all is that every vote that is cast in New Hampshire is cast on a paper ballot," Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said. "We have tremendous faith in the job that our local election officials do in the state and with all of their help we are very confident that the results of the election that took place Tuesday is what happened."

Paragraph 15 of the article.

[jaybeat]

25. But counted by Diebold's "proprietary" software

A hand recount is the only way to verify that the machine counted the votes properly.

What, pray tell, could possibly be wrong with that?

[Xipe Totec]

26. What proprietary software?

to scan paper ballots?

I think you are confusing the touch-screen proprietary software issue with this more trivial one of a paper ballot scanner.

This hand count you are proposing, is it okay for the officials to use adding machines to tally the votes, or do they have to do long hand addition?

And who is going to vet the vote counters since you obviously don't trust the election officials?

[jaybeat]

29. This officials I trust, more or less. Diebold, not so much.

The Diebold optical ballot scanners count and tabulate the votes. These machines have been shown to be insecure and hackable. It is easy to change the totaled results and leave no trace. The only way to know that the vote totals have been changed (or *not* changed) is to go back and do a hand recount of the paper ballots.

These machines, like the touch-screen machines, use proprietary software that the machines' makers have repeatedly refused to let election officials or any outside experts examine in *any* way. We just have to take their word for it that the machines count the votes correctly and are secure from outside tampering. Except that we know this is not true.

And, smart-alek, a simple calculator can't be hacked. And recounts are observed by a representative of each candidate. We have done recounts before, Sherlock. Going back to long before there were adding machines.

Why does the idea of doing this cause you to be so dismissive and sarcastic?

[Xipe Totec]

32. Scanners are old tech, been around too long, too many other vendors

there is no proprietary technology involved.

[jaybeat]

39. Just fall off the turnip truck?

The basic idea of scanning a paper ballot (or test, or other form) and recording the data is "old tech" but no body is using the same machines they used in the 1970s!

And of course there is proprietary technology involved. The software that runs these machines is *secret* private company property. Word processing is "old technology" but that 1980's copy of Word Perfect is just as secret and proprietary as MS Word 2007!

As far as the number of vendors, the folks who really know this stuff will have to correct me, but I think there are only 3 companies that make election equipment (and the software that runs it), and they all have strong links to Republican politics, that have been documented extensively.

Like my bumper sticker says, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!"

[Warren Stupidity]

38. You do understand that hacking the opscan tabulators

used in NH has already been demonstrated to be easy to do, don't you? No obviously you aren't. Hey I wasn't either until I got educated here.

From way back in 2005:

Optical-scan machines have become the preferred choice of many election officials due to the controversy over touch-screen voting machines, many of which do not produce a paper trail. Optical-scan machines use a paper ballot on which voters mark selections with a pen before officials scan them into a machine. The paper serves as a backup if the machine fails or officials need to recount votes.

The hack Thompson and Hursti performed involves a memory card that's inserted in the Diebold machines to record votes as officials scan ballots. According to Thompson, data on the cards isn't encrypted or secured with passwords. Anyone with programming skills and access to the cards -- such as a county elections technical administrator, a savvy poll worker or a voting company employee -- can alter the data using a laptop and card reader.

To test the machines, Thompson and Hursti conducted a mock election on systems loaded with a rigged memory card. The election consisted of eight ballots asking voters to decide, yes or no, if the Diebold optical-scan machine could be hacked.

Six people voted "no" and two voted "yes." But after scanning the ballots, the total showed one "no" vote and seven "yes" votes.

Diebold did not return several calls for comment
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/12/69893

[jaybeat]

27. Confidence in Diebold is misplaced to say the least

Deputy Secretary of State David Scanlan said. "We have tremendous faith in the job that our local election officials do in the state and with all of their help we are very confident that the results of the election that took place Tuesday is what happened."

And that confidence is based on what, exactly? The guys from Diebold giving their "assurances" that their scanners count the votes correctly? Even though Diebold refuses to let any independent expert or state election official examine, review, check or verify the software or the company's claims of accuracy?

That's like in the old days, a US President saying "We in the US Government are very confident that the Soviet Union has dismantled and destroyed all the nuclear weapons that they say they have, and that their claim of compliance with arms control treaties is completely accurate. Of course, we have absolutely no independent confirmation of their claims, have seen no physical evidence of compliance, and, in fact, wouldn't even know how to look for it if given the chance."

When it comes to elections, I think we can all agree with (barf) Ronald Reagan"

"Trust, but verify."

Well, at least we should be able to agree on the second part!

[balantz]

30. That's why I say recount.

Why in Hell are we supposed to just roll over and let our votes be scanned by Diebold equipment? Isn't it a slap in the face that we are expected to trust this company?

And then, N.H. aside, I learn today that S.C. uses touchscreen, paperless voting equipment! No paper trail! WTF!!

It shouldn't be rocket science for our government to make sure that the public is absolutely satisfied that every tedious step is undertaken by whatever means necessary to ensure that our votes are held to be sacred.

I'm fuckin' outraged!

[Xipe Totec]

19. Touch-screen voting machines are not used in New Hampshire

All ballots in New Hampshire elections are cast on paper. Roughly 58 percent, or 175 of New Hampshire's 301 precincts, count their paper ballots using AccuVote optical scan machines, the only ones approved by the state. Touch-screen voting machines are not used in New Hampshire.

Quoting from the article, paragraph 14.

[Pastiche423]

34. AccuVote optical scan machines = Diebold

Diebold = proprietary software = NOT transparent.

[DeeDeeNY]

28. Very comforting to be reassured by "experts"

Nothing to see here. Just move along now.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Edison Media Research - gosh that name is familiar.

Yes of course that would be the same Edison Media Research of Edison and Mitofsky 'adjusted' 2004 exit poll fame.

No axe to grind there.

[zeemike]

36. What logical explanation could there be

For hand counted results to be the opposite of machine counted ones.
Are the people that live and vote in hand counted districts different than the others?
Makes no sense to me other than to believe that something is wrong somewhere.

[Igel]

42. If you look at the actual results, county by county,

you get lost in the detail. But the detail here is important.

Obama, in hand-counted jurisdictions, got from 12 to over 50% of the vote, IIRC. HRC had similar kinds of numbers, BTW.

Then you look in the machine-counted jurisdictions, and you see the same kind of spread.

In other words, even for just hand-counted jurisdictions, a given jurisdiction's demographics makes all the difference. Same for machine-counted jurisdictions.

What we need to believe for assuming the machine- and hand-counted averages should be the same is two things: First, that there are enough jurisdictions for the averages to be useful; there are a lot, but I'd still expect the averages to not be quite the same, however this is a trivial point. More importantly, we have to believe that the distribution of hand- and machine-counting is completely random.

I've heard NHers say otherwise, that there's a geographical and demographic difference, on average, between jurisdictions that use hand- vs. machine-counting. I'd rather expect one, to be honest--small, rural jurisdictions are more likely to use hand-counting, for example, and urban areas more likely to use machines. Do we really want to force ourselves to believe that there's no difference in urban and rural voters, in general? I'm not going to suspend belief on that point.

Recounts are always a good idea, sort of spot-checks, and random audits should be required everywhere. But in this case, the default hypothesis lands on the side of 'vote's valid', not 'vote's invalid'.

[JackRiddler]

48. But isn't it also interesting how the polling in hand-counted counties

matched the results, whereas the polling in machine-counted counties was wrong?

And we don't have to debate where the default hypothesis lands - it should be able to determine beyond any doubt by counting all of the ballots; as for spot checks and random audits, the experience with "random" precinct selction at Cuyahoga County in the 2004 recount should tell you how inadequate that is. In that case, it wasn't even malice but laziness at work!

[99th_Monkey]

54. Thanks to e-voting, we're reduced to assessing "believability" of hypothesis A vs. B

So you'd like me to believe it was Hillary's crying, or latent racism of NH voters, or some such crap to "explain" the wild deviation of the official "results" from the polls, and then on top of that, believe also that "demographics" somehow explains away the stark differences between hand counted and op-scanned ballots.

Whew! You have a LOT more faith in these wild "explanations" pundits are pulling absurd out of their asses than I ever could, and appear
to be just assuming (not verifying with any data of any kind) that "democraphics" puts the whole thing to rest.

Why are you so studiously resisting the most obvious and simple way to clear up the doubt, dispense with having to believe in tooth fairies, and just verify the freaking results with a hand recount? what is so difficult about that?

[insleeforprez]

71. Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

"More importantly, we have to believe that the distribution of hand- and machine-counting is completely random.

I've heard NHers say otherwise, that there's a geographical and demographic difference, on average, between jurisdictions that use hand- vs. machine-counting. I'd rather expect one, to be honest--small, rural jurisdictions are more likely to use hand-counting, for example, and urban areas more likely to use machines. Do we really want to force ourselves to believe that there's no difference in urban and rural voters, in general? I'm not going to suspend belief on that point."

Assuming that the difference in hand-counted and machine-counted tallies is caused by fraud is just as logically flawed as assuming that more police cause crime (which the data would suggest, because cities with higher crime will likely hire more police as a result). Yay economics.

[jaybeat]

77. I don't think we should have to assume anything

"Assuming that the difference in hand-counted and machine-counted tallies is caused by fraud is just as logically flawed as assuming that more police cause crime (which the data would suggest, because cities with higher crime will likely hire more police as a result). Yay economics."

I don't assume that, but I shouldn't have to assume that it is *not* caused by fraud, either. I should be able to *know* that our elections systems are secure. I should be able to *know* that the results can't be easily changed without leaving a trace. I should be able to *know* that the way the votes are counted is clear, open, transparent, and has been examined by experts and interested parties (candidates, etc.) from ALL sides.

But, in fact, I know that NONE of these things is true. Given that, asking for a little evidence that fraud did NOT take place is a pretty reasonable request. More like an necessity, really.

[scipan]

74. yes, nice reasoned post.

I agree with you. However, the difference between the polls and the vote still needs to be explained. Andrew Kohut (I think) said that the people who made up their minds on the last day were not numerous enough to change the vote that much, so he favors the Bradley phenomenon explanation. Mark Shields said that the only demographic that changed were the women, so he favors the Hillary's-crying-demeaned-by-media explanation. Having the exit polls by precinct would really help here.

[bleever]

73. One explanation

being offered is that because machine-counted areas are more urban, it may be a matter of rural vs. urban voting patterns.

But that's only a hypothesis until the tallies are confirmed. Too many people are happy to take this kind of explanation on faith, rather than actually double-check the counting itself.

[bemildred]

37. I know they are not saying that Clinton and Obama got 100% of the votes.

So what are they saying?

[tom_paine]

41. Gotta have that backstory

"It was evangelicals, no it was a massive big-city white turnout, no it was..."

Bullshit.

[Kip Humphrey]

44. At least they admit this pattern has been around for years. Now, let's hand-count the ballots!

[bhikkhu]

50. Here's my vote for mandatory recounts

On all elections. I don't care if the winner is already declared and seated - at least it would lead to an improvement and confidence in the process and confidence. It would at least be an end to bitter arguments over whether to recount or not, or whether to keep or discard paper trails.

As far as expense - its the cost of doing business. It is one thing I would be happy to see my taxes pay for.

[Peace Patriot]

52. And I'm supposed to believe an Edison "expert" because...?

A. They doctored the exit polls in 2004 to force them to agree with a "trade secret" count for Bush, and such cleverness should be admired?

B. Despite the fact that other countries use exit polls to check for fraud, not to confirm a "trade secret" official result, their continuance of this practice in the U.S. helps prevent riots in the streets by outraged citizens (i.e., what they don't know won't hurt them)?

C. When caught red-handed doctoring the exit polls in 2004, they promised to never again let the public get its hands on the undoctored exit poll data, as happened in 2004, once again sacrificing their credibility to domestic peace and tranquility, and the billions of dollars they make from doing this crap helps the economy?

[jbnow]

58. Secret except they didn't plan on

Matthews being a blabber mouth. The very few who got the data at the networks were not suppose to share it but Matthews had a point to prove
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598268/

Jennifer, I want to start with you and try—I‘m wide open on this. I have no pre-conception. Like everyone else, I was stunned at 5:30ish last night. I was passed a piece of paper just for guidance that told me that Barack Obama was going to win a significant victory. This was based upon the polling of people going—sorry, coming out of the booth, having voted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598272/

MATTHEWS: The exit polling showed, I got to tell you, I got it late in the evening yesterday that showed Hillary behind. And they were telling us it was going to get to be a bigger behind. She was going to fall further behind, so explain that...

Now that's not getting the data but it's enough to let us know that the raw data going out into the evening showed a big win for Obama before they corrected the exit poll
I don't understand their raw data argument, how it is too misleading
But that just doesn't sound right

[dmosh42]

55. Has there been an analysis on the exit polls following the votes? n/t

[eridani]

59. Fuck that. It is NOT up to voters to prove that there was hanky-panky

It is up to elections departments to prove that there was NOT. Mandatory audits, NOW!

[jaybeat]

78. Bingo! (nt)

[SoxFan]

63. There was no Diebold cheating

Over the last couple of days, I have spoken to about half a dozen New Hampshire politicos about the recount. They include a Richardson field staffer, a Romney co-chair, a former state rep who backs McCain, and an Obama contributor.

All of them agree that the "Diebold stole the election" theory is the most idiotic thing they have heard in years. These are peopl who know the vote patterns, who understand the ebb and flow of NH politics, and who have experience in observing recounts in races with the optical scan ballots. Not one of them believes that anything out of sorts occured on Tuesday.

[MaineDem]

64. I totally agree with you

Hillary was expected to do well in places like Manchester and Obama was favored in the outlying areas. I don't see an anomaly here at all. It's New Hampshire. (Meant in the nicest way, of course.)

[SoxFan]

66. Finally!

A voice of reason!

I vote in Manchester's Ward 3. My ward historically has been hostile to reformist Democratic candidates (I seem to be the exception). Gore crushed Bradley here, and Dean was a very distant second, closer to Lieberman and Clark than to Kerry. On Tuesday, Hillary won the ward by about 120 votes. As an Obama supporter, I was actually pleasantly surprised, since he did better than any similar candidate ever had in this precinct. We managed to bring some new folks in to the polls, we did a lot of late lit drops, and it had some impact.Hillary won because her team did a good job of organizing the senior high-rise apartments and rounding up absentee votes from older Democratic "regulars", while Obama was able to tap the younger voters in the area.

If the machines were rigged, Obama would have received about 25%-28% in Ward 3. That's what he received in Wards 5, 7, and 9, all somewhat similar precincts with comparable voting patterns. Obama won about 36% of the Ward 3 vote on the strength of new voters and an appeal to forty-and-under Dems and Independents, who voted in greater numbers than usual, and because he had the help of the ward's alderman and school committeewoman.

Nothing funky. Nothing suspicious.

[YvonneCa]

68. I agree with you...

...too. But a recount is still a good idea because it brings media coverage to important election issues and will focus the public on ways to improve our system. In many states the election systems used aren't secure and they aren't reliable and they aren't transparent. Publicizing this recount is a good way to educate the public and improve our voting system. It's not about last Tuesday.

I'm all for improving fairness in our elections...and getting the $$$$ out. :)

[Zynx]

76. There was nothing unusual about the voting patterns at all.

The areas using optical scans do vote differently than the rest of the state. It's true in every election.

[jaybeat]

79. Prove it (nt)

[eridani]

80. Without properly conducted mandatory audits, you can't tell

As David Dill always says "It is not enough that elections BE accurate; we have to KNOW that they are accurate ane we don't.

[Political Heretic]

84. I think you're right AND I STILL want transparency in the process.

I don't think Diebold had anything to do with voting results. BUT THE VERY FACT THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO VERIFY THIS IS TRUE, NO PAPER RECORD OF VOTES, AND NO TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCESS ought to be something that bothers every single American.

[boricua79]

69. I'd like for him to explain this sentence

"If you do a little more statistical digging, you find out that this isn't proving what they think it's proving. It's a pattern that's been around for years," he said.


How so? Does it just happens that in towns were there are hand counted ballots there's hatred of frontrunners or of Clinton? What's the correlation? And if it is across the board, how comes all the towns with hand counts show such divergence in voting patterns?

I'm not convinced...and I won't be until we have hand ballots or open-source voting machines created and programmed by a bipartisan, public corporation and vetted by our best, most trustworthy computer programmers.

[Political Heretic]

83. THIS IS NOT ABOUT EXPERT "OPINION." IT IS ABOUT CONCRETE VERIFIABLE RECORD OF VOTES CAST!

It's that simple.

I am "skeptical" that there is any voter fraud in N.H. Too.

BUT NO ONE WILL EVER KNOW FOR SURE UNTIL THERE IS COMPLETE TRANSPARENCY IN THE PROCESS!

[khaos]

86. experts

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=256_1201635464